SD Congressman Getting Special Treatment?

[CJIowa]

<http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2003/11/11/news/regional/20c214dd7b65c33386256ddb0017d658.txt>

It looks to me like the judiciary is coming to the rescue for the republican congressman. Of course the evidence is prejudicial to him, that is why it is relevant. I wonder who appointed this judge? Of course it was a republican.

[Noordam]

1. yes but the cat is out of the bag................

" but they won't see evidence on three accidents and 12 speeding tickets in his driving record, a judge ruled Monday."

this has been in LBN before and yes I think everybody that could be picked for the jury will know about they not being able to know that he has 12 speeding tickets......... :)

[CJIowa]

4. Sorry

I had not seen this ruling discussed in LBN before. Obviously the case has been, but this seems to be a fairly significant ruling that could let this SOB walk away from this. I wish the media would cover this case like they are covering the Kobe case.

[R Hickey]

2. Why is this not getting any airtime?

This trial is starting to look interesting, but I doubt that FOX will ever give it any airtime.

[tom_paine]

6. NO ONE will give it airtime

This is unremarkable in Imperial Amerika. As unremarkable as not seeing any coverage of Communist Party corruption in the Soviet Union circa 1977.

Janklow is a member of the Imperial Bushevik Party. I cannot speak to the legality oF what the judge has done, though I certainly wonder if he is a member of the Free-Market Stalinist-style Bushevik front-group, the Federalist Society.

If so, then Bushevik Janklow has NOTHING to worry about. 100% certain.

Just as it is 100% certain you won't see this on Corporate TV Pravda.

[AlinPA]

8. He will be off free. He is in DC still voting last I heard

He is friend of Bush

[hang a left]

3. I think that the Judge just might be being fair here.

snip

The state does have to prove Janklow was speeding, but to allow the driving record may cause more bias with jurors than benefit to the prosecution's case, Steele said. "I do think his driving record is marginally relevant," he said.

But if Janklow makes an excuse for speeding or claims there was not a conscious decision to speed, Steele may allow the driving record to be introduced.

"Then the evidence may become relevant on rebuttal," he said.

snip

Regarding the close call, the judge said the value to the state's case outweighs any prejudice it may create with jurors.



The Judge is not allowing the driving record at this time, but if their defense includes ridiculous excuses and how Janklow was such a cautious driver, it looks like he will let the prosecution rebut with the record.

I think that is SOP in criminal trials. They do not allow the attornies to introduce prior offenses because it tends to cause bias for the jury.

The Judge is allowing the "close call" in, and if you read what happened there, and the witness statements, if I was a lawyer, and I had to chose between the two pieces of evidence, I'd take the "close call."

I think this case is being closely watched, so far it appears the judge is doing his job.

THat is how I see it anyway.

[TahitiNut]

10. How is this consistent with the principles of "Three Strikes"?

To disregard prior convictions in this case seems contrary to the persistent hue and cry for elevated culpability. I realize the trial phase is distinct from the sentencing phase, but the question of relevance seems to be eroded by a presumption of future behavior inherent in a "Three Strikes" philosophy. After all, if it's presumptive of future behavior why wouldn't it be at least partially presumptive of current (being tried) behavior? If we're to ensconce such presumption in sentencing, why not in trying?


(FWIW, I'm opposed to 'Three Strikes' sentencing based on undeniable and inherently unequal protection under the law.)

[hang a left]

11. I agree with you, Three Strikes, constitutes

"Cruel and Unusual Punishment." I think even one of our SC Justices has even weighed in on this.

The importance here, in my opinion, is the right to a fair trial. Regardless of your political affiliation.

I don't know about the prior convictions of Janklow, but a strike is regarded as a felony conviction.

I am a true believer that our justice system is corrupted beyond belief, just like the two remaining branches of government. I just don't see it here........yet.


on edit I changed 'are' to 'our'.......it just didn't look right.

[Braden]

5. check this out

its been at least a couple of Days and CNN has him as a D, Democrat.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/janklow.ap/index.html


...snip...

Rep. Bill Janklow, D-South Dakota, is charged with manslaughter in a fatal traffic accident

[asjr]

7. janklow

CNN did that on purpose. I will never believe otherwise. Did Candy Creepy Crawler have anything to do with it?

[hang a left]

9. Media Whores!!!!!!!

[juajen]

12. I just clicked on this, and

it shows that he is a Republican, not a democrat. Have they corrected it already?

[suegeo]

13. Janklow

I think it's an interesting coincidence, given the Bush family's ties to the Nazis, that Janklow's father was a lawyer at the Nuremberg trials...

http://www.ejm.lsc.gov/EJMIssue4/profiles/janklow.htm

(Warning: The article is fairly gag inducing, esp. because I know what a real skunk Janklowis...However, the article is an interview with Jank, so you can expect the man to puff himself up.)